[PureOS] Let's stablize PureoS Green

[Jeremiah C. Foster]

On Fri, 2019-03-22 at 10:39 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Quoting Omar (2019-03-22 01:06:03)
> > On 3/21/19 1:41 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > > Quoting Omar (2019-03-21 18:12:23)
> > > > On 3/21/19 11:01 AM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > > > > Conceptually we offer one PureOS, but technically one of
> > > > > more 
> > > > > flavors. We promote PureOS as a single thing towards our
> > > > > users, 
> > > > > but it is possible for them to know the flavor (needed e.g.
> > > > > for 
> > > > > bug tracking).
> > > > > 
> > > > > Currently we have 2 flavors, one for laptops and one for
> > > > > phones 
> > > > > (ignoring additional draft/development flavors not promoted
> > > > > to 
> > > > > users).
> > > > Let me throw another wrench into the gears. We have servers on
> > > > the 
> > > > horizon. I would say priority has risen to roll these out in
> > > > less 
> > > > than 6 months but we have something in the works now to sell.
> > > > How 
> > > > does this affect things?

Servers are usually "headless" which means they don't usually need a
GUI. This is because they tend to get racked in some remote data with
the only access a OpenSSH port. This makes things a lot easier since a
"vanilla" instance of PureOS server software, without a GUI, means we
can use something very close to our upstream Debian. 

Debian is likely the most widely used server OS so if we don't do much
(I imagine we'll add PureBoot and perhaps other things) we should be
able to create and maintain a server flavor of PureOS fairly easily.
There are early discussions with Dan Kinon about this, hopefully we'll
have more when the hardware's ready and when Dan gets a free moment, I
understand he's very busy. :-)

> > > Quite interesting! What more specifically do we have in works
> > > now?
> > > 
> > > Possibly we can simply have servers use same flavor as laptops
> > > or 
> > > phones - depending on both which hardware and which software
> > > needs 
> > > we are talking about.
> > > 
> > > If e.g. we want to offer services with AI logic relying on GPU 
> > > processing running on hardware similar to the phones, then it
> > > gets 
> > > challenging to stabilize.
> > > 
> > > If we "just" want to offer Librem One services in a box, then it 
> > > _may_ gets challenging to stabilize, if it includes parts like
> > > Riot 
> > > Web.
> > This is on the roadmap. A 'Librem Box' with similar specs to our 
> > laptop but probably 8th gen cpu. See here and issue #1: 
> > https://source.puri.sm/Products/Librem_Hardware/librembox. With
> > higher 
> > MOQs required, the rack server is taking precedence. I think the
> > easy 
> > part for the Librem Box is the hardware. I'll leave the hard part
> > to 
> > you guys ;)  
> >   <https://source.puri.sm/Products/Librem_Hardware/librembox>
> > > Please tell more - I have looked forward to this since I began 
> > > working for Purism ~20 moons ago.
> > Great! For now, looking at using a 1U rackmount Xeon-D motherboard 
> > with Coreboot and a Librem Key thrown into the mix. Any suggestions
> > or 
> > ideas you would like to see, please throw them my way! More to
> > come...
> 
> From a technical general software standpoint, server hardware close
> to 
> our existing laptops can use exact same flavor as for the laptops
> (just 
> using a different install profile than "GNOME desktop").

+1

> 
> I envision no major PureOS cost (time, attention, infrastructure) in 
> offering to ship such servers with FreedomBox preinstalled.

+1 
It's hard to say how much work porting Pureboot to Xeon is, at least
for me, perhaps for other's it's easier. 

> If we choose to stabilize the flavor we now use for laptops, then we
> can 
> still offer a FreedomBox install: It is already available in PureOS.
> 
> Adapting FreedomBox to include more/other services more closely
> matching 
> our Librem One offering, then that will need time and resources.
> 
> Adapting user interface of FreedomBox to more closely align with our 
> design principles should be possible, but I expect that to require 
> resources as well - I am happy to look into that closer with the
> desing 
> team as needed.

+1 

> I don't have further ideas than already mentioned in your referenced 
> issue, but please keep me in the loop!
> 
> If/when we open up to also explore smaller fanless server options, I 
> have more ideas, as that has been my main focus the past ~15 years.

I think a set of specifications from your side would be very valuable
when it comes time to making that decision. Would you be willing to
draw something like that up?

Cheers,

Jeremiah
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 659 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.puri.sm/pipermail/pureos-project/attachments/20190322/9d3223bf/attachment.sig>